Chamber and committees

Thank you for those comments, which are largely similar to the notes that I have in front of me. LOIPs are really important, and it is important that they are ambitious, yet realistic, with that focus on improvement outcomes and reducing inequalities.

In terms of the concept of the new deal, we need to understand outcomes better and what it is that we are trying to achieve. I will ask Andrew Connal to talk a bit about what that might mean in the context of the new deal.

Public service reform—in particular, how we deliver effective and efficient public services—has to be supported by effective community planning. That work is key to achieving the cost-cutting policy missions, including tackling inequalities and aiding prevention, that have been set out by the Scottish Government. The critical message, which is one of the three priorities for the Scottish Government from the recent budget, is that public services remain sustainable and well placed to improve outcomes and reduce inequalities. We are reinforcing that in our engagement with public bodies, including many of the statutory community planning partners, and we are emphasising that they need to pursue opportunities to do that, both alone and in collaboration.

You mentioned that there is a degree of variability. Given the nature of public service reform, you would expect there to be variability, but it is obviously the Government’s role to ensure that public bodies act and that implementation on the ground remains fit for purpose. That is why the then Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth announced the review that we are taking forward and why I welcome the work of this committee.

The evidence report is important in ensuring robust and evidence-led plan making. It should provide a summary of what the evidence means for plan making. The aim is to front-load that work.

Sorry, what were you asking about the process?

A big concern would be that, if we had laid out in the regulations minimum requirements for evidence and consultation, that could be seen as the bar or as a tick-box exercise. Our approach is about having a system that can adapt. The guidance will be crucial to that. If we set such minimum requirements, there is a danger that people would aim for those, tick the box and move on to the next thing.

I hope that folk who engage will see it in that way. Crucially, because so much will be in the guidance, it will be easier for us to adapt it. The guidance will be a living document—it will not be edition 1 followed by edition 2—so it will support everyone to engage in the way that we expect.

The key agencies are the same key agencies that were in the 2008 regulations. There are some changes, because some of the organisations have changed their names; for instance, Scottish Natural Heritage is now NatureScot. There are also a couple of new agencies; for instance, South of Scotland Enterprise effectively has the same role as Highlands and Islands Enterprise, although they have different geographies. Those are the main changes but, largely, the list is based on the list in the 2008 regulations.

With regard to which agencies are key and which are not, some of the agencies that might make sense as key agencies, such as Transport Scotland and Marine Scotland, are agencies of the Scottish Government, so the legislation does not allow them to be key agencies—although it is absolutely important that they are engaged. Guidance will make it clear that some of those big organisations should still be connected.

You mentioned Network Rail and VisitScotland. Obviously, Network Rail is part of the UK Government, but the regional transport partnerships are in the list. I think that VisitScotland is probably in a similar place to the other groups that I mentioned.

We have to acknowledge that we need to continue to invest in building capacity, because that is never going to be a done deal. One of the ways in which the Scottish Government does that is by funding the Scottish Community Development Centre which, in turn, funds community-based groups to engage with participation requests.

You asked about community councils. They are one of many community bodies that are listed in the statutory guidance, and CPPs should engage with them constructively.

David Milne might want to add something.

It is a case of doing what is appropriate for the locality and the communities there.

That follows on from the previous question, when we talked about ensuring that we were not overly burdening all our public bodies with requirements to produce data. I wonder whether the answer to that is to ensure that we collect the correct data, whether it is quantitative or qualitative, and to share it so that we understand the progress that is being made towards improving local outcomes. That is perhaps the best answer.

Maybe we are better to write.

Thanks very much, convener. I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to discuss community planning as part of its on-going post-legislative scrutiny of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. As you are aware, part 2 of the act introduces reforms to community planning and provides a statutory purpose for public sector bodies to work together and with communities to improve outcomes and reduce inequalities.

The Government is committed to community planning. It enables genuine partnership working and provides an ideal platform through which to address the deep-rooted and complex social, economic and environmental challenges that affect communities across Scotland. As a result, the place-based actions that community planning partnerships take on local priorities also support important public service reform ambitions for the Scottish Government nationally, such as the eradication of child poverty, economic transformation, a just transition to net zero and tackling health inequalities.

The Scottish Government is conducting an informal review of part 2 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, which covers community planning. The review builds on practical learning and engagement with partners, including the community planning improvement board, to ensure that community planning is as effective as it can be.

I know that the committee has heard evidence from a range of witnesses, all of whom have valuable experience of community planning. I note that there have been successful examples of community planning in practice since the act was passed and that there is also potential for continued improvement in how community planning operates in practice. The committee’s findings and recommendations will inform our review and help us to further improve community planning so that it supports our ambition to enhance partnership working and to improve outcomes for communities across Scotland.

I look forward to receiving the committee’s report and engaging with members on how to ensure that community planning continues helping to improve outcomes for communities across Scotland.